Busting the myth of a "social contract"

16th Amendment

 

"Social Contract" is liberalspeak for "The constitution lets us do whatever we want".

 

Correction "prior to the 16th amendment", which was passed under questionalble circumstances.

 

I think you might have taken sarcasm literally there...

 

So you agree that the Constitution allows for income taxation, aka "theft"?

 

Social Contract is a philosophical term that actually originated in the Hellenic world with debates around the legitimacy of rulers and governments and the best way to organize a society. Of course, knee-jerk demands to see a written text of some legally binding document are merely a canard by neo-Liberals and John-Birch type Libertarians to make it sound like they are not part of a social structure but purely individuals with no obligations or connections with the greater society in which they live.

The key issue as expressed by Russeau, Hobbes and others is what is they best way to govern a society for the greater good.? There has to be some interplay between the governed and those who are govern? What is the best way to structure that interplay?

Consider: How much would a rational individual, given a free choice, give up of his inherent freedom of action in order to live in a stable, prosperous society, free from political instability or social strife in which individuals have a stake and a role to play in the greater good?

Alternatively: Is a society of people completely free to act in their own best interest in competition with all others, free from any constraint from governing authority going to be one able to work efficiently towards greater good or common goals or common projects without strife or social instability and conflict?

Don't forget that under Libertarianism, every individual or faction of individuals, in society is free to act in their own interests just as you are so in the event that your interests, property rights or access to resources conflict, how do you solve those conflicts? Some kind of contract? Or, if human history is any indication through pure violence and military power?

Before you buy into the simplistic argument the op is trying to make, you really have to ask your self and examine the consequences of living in a society without some kind of inherent social cohesion that gives the majority of citizens some stake in how that society is governed.

 

Pure BS. Using the actions of a tiny minority in distant history to demonize the whole.

 

Distant history? The claim is being made that this country was founded on the supposed principle of "you're not the boss of me", but those very same people owned slaved, had institutionalized discrimination and oppression against racial minorities, treated women as at best second class citizens (marital rape was 100% legal for the vast majority of American history), and treated homosexuals as criminals at best.

 

not more than 3% of people in the US owned slaves ever. all the other injustices you mention were worse almost everywhere else in the world at the same time. classical liberalism was and still is at the forefront of the movement to end those injustices. social institutions are not abolished overnight.

 

So is this just your roundabout way of agreeing with me that the very people who didn't want their (White Male) wallets to be touched by the King of England had no problem with violating the freedoms of others?

 

I recognise the 16th Amendment exists, just at one time the 18th amendment existed. Neither are consistant with the "original constitution" nor the natural rights recognised by it. But that is another debate, this debate is on the liberal presumption that a "social contract" exists, please stay on topic.

 

a tiny minority of them. though I wouldn't classify them as classical liberals. they were social insurgents taking advantage of a movement in its infancy, using the fog of social change to hold on to the reigns of unjust power that was slowly being unraveled.

just because The West was founded on classical liberalism doesnt mean everyone involved were classical liberals...

 

How is taxation not in keeping with the original Constitution which explicitly gives Congress the power of taxation?

As for staying on topic, you have yet to answer my question about you not being subject to the social contract for the United States (the Constitution): Have you ever voted or in any other way participated in the government of the United States?

 

That tiny minority controlled the government and its laws.

 

which supports your assertion that classical liberals are racist bigoted authoritarians how?

 

Can you name a single classic liberal from that era that support equal rights for everyone regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation?

 

Your post while well written is a little disingenuous. I am sure you are aware that Libertarianism is based on the non agression principal in which one persons freedom is restricted by any infringement on the rights of another. In the event of conflicts, these issues are decided in a court of law. Please explain how this has anything to do with the principals of agression practiced by socialist government in which the indivudual is forced by threat of violence to succum to extortion often for programs and policies they do not support, and justified by something called a social contract which in reality does not exist.

 

If only your response actually addressed what was said.

 

Yeah, but the non-aggression principle only works where there is an equal playing field with individuals with similar powers of political persuasion over the levers of government. For instance, consider the aboriginal protesters at Standing Rock who were trying to protect their land and water from contamination and how well the courts and laws helped them in exorcising those rights. They were violently oppressed by police action. So for Libertarians like the Koch Bros., non-aggression and no government interference is great as long as they have government to defend their property rights and interests - something which the don't want to pay for, I might add, but only becomes problematic when someone else tries to stand up for their own interests against theirs.

Political and economic power being what it is, who do you think is going to come out the winner in a fight between fossil fuel interests and people who by your own definition should have exactly the same right to defend their land and water from contamination as anyone else?

Can you see the fallacy of the non-aggression argument? Exploitation of others lands and resources is always violent, repressive and brutal and usually involves police or military action without some kind of debate about the greater good.

Now, I'll put the question to you again, being a rational person, how much of your individual liberty would you give up to live in a stable, prosperous, functional democracy with a moderation in social and political upheaval and strife?

And living is such a stable and prosperous society, would you feel an obligation to help maintain and support that society - you know a patriotic love of your fellow citizens and a genuine interest is the greater good of the land you live in. That would really be patriotism, would it not?

People have been debating things like a social contract since the time of Solon so it is a reasonable argument to have, but for American's I think the role of government and how people are governed has become drowned out by the reactionary hatred and fear of alternatives and the overwhelming propaganda that unfettered, Neo-Liberal economics is the natural order of things and anything else - unspeakable - literally.

 

of course it does. it's why you currently, and will continue paying your taxes.

other than an amendment in the constitution, specifically allowing it. 16th amendment.

amendments can't be ruled unconstitutional. They are by definition, part of the constitution.

Whacky, whacky ideas libertarians have.

 

The Constitution is not a social contract, it is a litteral contract and it is between the States and the Federal Government. Individual citizens are not party to it. So far as taxation, the Constitution lays out that the Federal Government only has jurisdiction in one area domesitcally, and that is commerce. That gives the Federal Government powers to levy tarriffs, collect excise taxes, or any other tax upon commerce. Basically when a commerce transaction takes place, the government has a right to tax it. The reason this makes sense is that government through the sevices it provides to commerce, is a partner in commerce and needs to be paid for the services it supplies.
Taxing labor is another thing all together. To justify taxing labor, a government would have to claim some sort of ownership of the person providing the labor, just as a slave owner is legally able to claim the fruits of the labor of their slaves. A US citizen is not the property of the Federal Government, and should not be subject to claims on their labor.
In addition the government relies on a logical fallacy to justify the taxation of labor. According to government, a person has no "cost basis" in their own labor. This is basically saying that a persons labor is worthless and what is earned by that labor is all profit.
Of course this is false as a persons labor is the fruit of their life. The time they spend working can never be recouped and is in fact a frational piece of their life. If a life has value, so does what life is lost providing labor.
Therefore, the income tax is based on both the assumption the government has a claim on your person, and that your life is worthless. Kind of sounds like slavery to me.

 

Correct.
The mission statement of said contact is to:
- Form a more perfect union
- Establish justice
- Insure domestic tranquility
- Provide for the common defense
- Promote the general welfare
- Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

 

It is exactly a social contract and it is between the citizens and the government. Does it begin with "We the States"? No, it begins with "We the People" and has always applied to those people even when they weren't/aren't living in states (the US has always had non-state territory included).

When my employer takes some of the value of my labor in the form of profit, does that mean my employer is asserting ownership over me? Am I my employer's property?

Why are you still refusing to answer my question? Have you every voted or in any other way participated in the government of the United States?

 

The constitution is the social contract. By being a US citizen, and remaining on US soil, you are agreeing to the terms.